|
Yeah I just went and looked his history and...  And for point of reference on the timeframe: his Yakima shenanigans were pretty much in the middle of everything and quote:The co-pilot on Holland's aircraft testified that he grabbed the controls to prevent Holland from flying the aircraft into the ridge while the aircraft's other two aircrew members repeatedly screamed at Holland, "Climb! Climb!" Holland responded by laughing and calling one of the crew members "a pussy".[1] Just Bud being Bud  holy poo poo
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:The Bud Holland case is taught at USAF flight safety school. I wanna say the wing commander died in the crash because he knew how reckless Holland was and didn't dare anyone else be his co-pilot during the airshow. SQ/CC. He had tried to get WG leadership to ground Holland and failed...Holland was Chief of Stan/Eval (talk about a black joke that writes itself) so the SQ/CC didn't have the juice to get him grounded. When the SQ/CC failed in that endeavor, he put out the order that none of his pilots would fly with Holland. The 4 guys on board Czar 52 were Holland, McGeehan (SQ/CC), McGeehan's DO, and the WG/CV (safety observer there on explicit orders of the WG/CC). The mishap flight was the fini flight for the WG/CV, so his family was present on the ramp when the mishap occurred. The SQ/CC's wife and kids knew dad was flying and saw the crash from their on base home. SQ/CC was the one who managed to punch. If you want a good read on the subject of Czar 52, Tony Kern did a really good piece looking at the background/lead-up to the incident from a leadership (or lack thereof) perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
I remember the days when a crew was me (flight safety), the wing flight safety dude (eval pilot, Major, UPT instructor previously), Vice CC (eval pilot, dude who's got thousands upon thousands of hours in multiple airframes, civilian and mil), and an eval nav. We all figured that's the kind of crew who would be dumb enough to crash a jet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
I cannot imagine a situation where a SQ/CC doesn't have enough pull with the OG to get a dude grounded...maybe not pulling his qual, but at least keeping him off the jet. That's loving unreal. He can't do it himself because as Stan/Eval chief the rear end in a top hat works for the OG, but goddamn what was going on at the command level?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I cannot imagine a situation where a SQ/CC doesn't have enough pull with the OG to get a dude grounded...maybe not pulling his qual, but at least keeping him off the jet. That's loving unreal. He can't do it himself because as Stan/Eval chief the rear end in a top hat works for the OG, but goddamn what was going on at the command level? Read the Tony Kern article I linked if you're really curious...tl;dr is combination of hear no evil/see no evil apathy among leadership, Cold War-era "he's a good stick and puts on a good airshow" mentality, and "welp that's just Bud being Bud" along with the fact that every time someone in a position of leadership made a half-hearted attempt to discipline Holland, it was always undocumented verbal counselings, so there was never a paper trail or really any record of his ever having been disciplined for any of his breaches of flight discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
They imagined themselves as characters in Top Gun or whatever movie like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
Different USAF back then. The Bud Holland mishap changed things for the better. And then the Sitka 43 crash happened which had a few callbacks to the Holland crash.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:And then the Sitka 43 crash happened which had a few callbacks to the Holland crash. Although to be fair there were some significant differences too, which I'd argue should actually trouble the USAF more than Bud Holland's "one lone rogue asshat isn't reigned in, kills a crew" escapades because those differences have much larger implications. Here's a decent read on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The squadron commander, in an amazing display of leadership for this wing edited every flight schedule where one of his pilots would have to fly with Bud and put himself in instead. The greatest cruelty in the world is that the people who step up like this so often must die for it. What an incredible commander, and a terrible loss. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
I actually took something more out of that whole Holland casestudy. Namely, one of the problems that a lone rogue rear end in a top hat has on an environment is that he teaches the others around him/her that this is an acceptable standard of conduct and airmanship. The Holland blackhole was bad enough that other pilots around him adopted his methods and tried imitating him. When it came time for them to change commands, they were busted out flight for recklessness and violating standards. It takes one apple to spoil the barrel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
The best part was it seems like every officer in the B52 command new Holland and new how much of an rear end in a top hat he was. He performed several airshows and demonstration routines before his incident. You'd think that word of mouth would prevent him from being rescheduled for it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Also related to the F35, news from a couple days ago  is continuing to kick the can down the road.At this rate, they won't make a decision before the next election. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-to-put-hold-on-jet-fighter-purchase/article19346094/ quote:The Harper government is pressing pause on a decision to buy new jet fighters, including whether to purchase Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Lightning II without holding a competition, because it feels ministers need more information on other options before selecting a course of action. Who needs a competition? Just buy the F15SE  already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
On the plus side in news I read that the delivery of the last CH-147F chinook of an order of 15 just happened on time AND on budget, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
slidebite posted:At this rate, they won't make a decision before the next election. Ya think?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
I actually think they will make a decision before the next election. they will make your decision to hold a competition which will mean they can brag about how accountable and fair they are to follow a due process. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
Just in time for the Liberals to get elected and cancel the CH-148 Cyclone program in a weird parallel to doing the same with the EH-101. Although to be fair the Conservatives seen close to canceling the drat thing since Sikorsky can't get their poo poo together. And the whole "30 minute runtime with no oil in the rotor gearing" requirement not being met. priznat fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Given that one of the major missions of Canada's new fighter aircraft is defending vast frozen wastelands against intruding bombers, it is clear that the MiG-31 is the best choice. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
Need something to deal with increased numbers of hybrid polar/grizzly bears too, should buy the remaining stock of A-10s before they are mothballed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
slidebite posted:I actually think they will make a decision before the next election. they will make your decision to hold a competition which will mean they can brag about how accountable and fair they are to follow a due process. Yeah, why would the Harper GovernmentTM make an announcement when Parliament is sitting and they might have to hear those terrible, awful Opposition members cruelly criticise them? Better to make the announcement over the summer when Parliament is out and hope everyone forgets by September.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:Given that one of the major missions of Canada's new fighter aircraft is defending vast frozen wastelands against intruding bombers, it is clear that the MiG-31 is the best choice. Tu 128 might be more Canada's speed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Tu 128 might be more Canada's speed. Huge and heavy? Two bigass engines? Dedicated Interceptor? I think we tried that already, and lord did we ever make it more pretty than the Russkis did. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Tu 128 might be more Canada's speed. 1. Acquire Tu-22M. 2. Modify as needed to fit massive fucktons of AAMs. (maybe just a software upgrade? idunno) 3. Profit? Bonus: Also capable of exploding ships illegally transiting Northwest Passage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
priznat posted:Need something to deal with increased numbers of hybrid polar/grizzly bears too, should buy the remaining stock of A-10s before they are mothballed. I have to ask, is this a reference to the recent Bigfoot DNA testing results? 50ish samples of bigfoot/yeti/etc hair were actually analyzed and all were dismissed as plant or glass fibers, or known animals like bears and dogs, except for an unknown bear type which might be some kind of polar/other bear hybrid
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Well I had heard of that but also in northern Canada and Alaska the hybrids are apparently there too. There is speculation that reduction of the sea ice is causing polar bears to move around and come into contact with grizzlies, which results in more hot interspecies bear action.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
MA-Horus posted:Huge and heavy?  
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
The Russians would probably be a little more hesitant to do some airspace probin'. Now all we can muster for intercepts is a tired CF-18 or a twin otter with delusions of grandeur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
priznat posted:Need something to deal with increased numbers of hybrid polar/grizzly bears too, should buy the remaining stock of A-10s before they are mothballed. Hey if it keeps the A-10s flying I am A-OK with using them to eliminate the scourge that is The Pizzly Bear from the lands of our neighbors to the north!   Wow, that is so quintessentially American and... erect. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
LostCosmonaut posted:1. Acquire Tu-22M. This was a semi-serious proposal for a B-1 variant: Wikipedia posted:The B-1R is a proposed upgrade of existing B-1B aircraft. The B-1R (R for "regional") would be fitted with advanced radars, air-to-air missiles, and new Pratt & Whitney F119 engines. This variant would have a top speed of Mach 2.2, but with 20% less range. Though given that "Crazy proposals no one ever ends up putting into production" is kinda how the Russian aerospace industry has worked since the fall of the Soviet Union I'm sure someone there has suggested something similar. (here, we put canard and thrust vector on Su-27, add 10 to designation. You buy? We launch satellite from wing of supersonic bomber, you buy?) Plastic_Gargoyle fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:This was a semi-serious proposal for a B-1 variant:  That would put a whole new spin on Boom-and-Zoom.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:(here, we put canard and thrust vector on Su-27, add 10 to designation. You buy? We launch satellite from wing of supersonic bomber, you buy?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWN3-s9ACpw&t=54s Is replacement for bear in circus!
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
Just like most military proposals, that's pretty awesome (and impractical). I dunno if I'd want to be flying a refitted bomber into air-to-air combat, although I suppose with long range missiles it doesn't have to actually get anywhere near the fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Just like most military proposals, that's pretty awesome (and impractical). I dunno if I'd want to be flying a refitted bomber into air-to-air combat, although I suppose with long range missiles it doesn't have to actually get anywhere near the fight. In WWII they scratched out "Bomber" and wrote in "Night fighter" all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Those were medium twin engine bombers or attack aircraft though. Doing that to the Bone is like turning a B-24 into an air superiority fighter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Though given that "Crazy proposals no one ever ends up putting into production" is kinda how the Russian aerospace industry has worked since the fall of the Soviet Union I'm sure someone there has suggested something similar. You bet they have! Comrade General, we put bigger engine and bigger radar in MiG-31, goes Mach 4...very fast and scaring pantsless American imperialist nuclear forces. You buy? (this is actually happening IRL, possibly - google the MiG-41)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Doing that to the Bone is like turning a B-24 into an air superiority fighter. In other words, awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
If you could fit a big fuckoff radar and really long range weapons to a B-24 that might make sense, though. The B-29 might be the better analogy, I don't thin there was any point in the war where the -24 had a marked speed advantage on the contemporary fighters.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
MRC48B posted:Those were medium twin engine bombers or attack aircraft though. You only avoided saying B-17 because they did that. Oh poo poo they modified a B-24 too! hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Jul 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Although to be fair there were some significant differences too, which I'd argue should actually trouble the USAF more than Bud Holland's "one lone rogue asshat isn't reigned in, kills a crew" escapades because those differences have much larger implications. Here's a decent read on that. So I read that link and it seems to me that the primary differentiation the author draws between Holland and Freyholtz is that nobody brought the dangers of his (Freyholtz's) actions to his attention. Okay, so was he or wasn't he violating known rules? If yes, how am I supposed to believe that he's this saintly aviator as portrayed by the author? If no, why was he A/C in an aircraft whose limits were unknown to him?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 06:33 |
|
|
SyHopeful posted:So I read that link and it seems to me that the primary differentiation the author draws between Holland and Freyholtz is that nobody brought the dangers of his (Freyholtz's) actions to his attention. I'm guessing it's an issue of complacency to ignoring rules vs. purposely going beyond them. Complacency creeps in subtly, and can be difficult to curb without constant vigilance. It's like, a person who moves to a new city with a clean driving record. For the first year or two, they're going to pretty much stick to the speed limit, signal every turn, do everything 'right' and 'by the book'. Then they start to become complacent, they see bad behavior go unpunished, so maybe they start going 5 over, and running intersections on orange lights. It creeps and creeps until one snowy night they help reiterate why a section of I-90 in Cleveland is called 'dead man's curve', in part because the behaviors he exhibited, this otherwise impeccable driver, should have been kept in check by the police; so arguably, a lack of enforcement of the rules allowed him to become dangerously complacent to the rules in place. Holland was this guy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jznoUT76wlg
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2014 04:49
|
|
